4 ms·

I don''t know. It is my impression that traditional companies are not able to produce complex software. I guess there are many paradigms that you have to break

by huherto 14y ago

I don''t know. It is my impression that traditional companies are not able to produce complex software. I guess there are many paradigms that you have to break to become a software company. It seems to me that is the reason why cell phone companies ended up buying their O.S. from google.

jacquesm 14y ago
> It is my impression that traditional companies are not able to produce complex software. What gave you that impression? What do you define as a non-traditional company?
- div 14y ago
  I think OP defines non-traditional in this instance as software companies. While I believe there's room for other companies to develop self-driving navigation systems, I think the Android example is pretty apt. It's interesting to think about when self-driving cars will actually be in stores. By then, all navigation systems will meet strict safety guidelines and some standardised tests. If all self-drivers are equally safe, the AI's driving style will become a differentiating factor. It seems to me like Google has an advantage in this type of development, although the future can certainly prove me wrong.
- chc 14y ago
  I think what he means is that car companies are good at making cars, but they're not as good at making the kind of AI you need for a fully autonomous car.
MaysonL 14y ago
Spend some time studying what current auto engines are, and how much software they embody. I'm not sure how much of it has been developed by the auto companies themselves, but there's quite a lot of it, and it's pretty robust: how ofter has your car OS crashed lately?
- fr0sty 14y ago
  Modern engine control is a collection of lookup tables and feedback loops with some preprogrammed "limp" modes to fall back on if things go pear-shaped. Robust? yes. Adaptive? yes. Complex? not really. Computer vision, road/object/hazard detection and avoidance and the like much much harder problems to solve.

by huherto 14y ago

jacquesm 14y ago

> It is my impression that traditional companies are not able to produce complex software. What gave you that impression? What do you define as a non-traditional company?

div 14y ago
I think OP defines non-traditional in this instance as software companies. While I believe there's room for other companies to develop self-driving navigation systems, I think the Android example is pretty apt. It's interesting to think about when self-driving cars will actually be in stores. By then, all navigation systems will meet strict safety guidelines and some standardised tests. If all self-drivers are equally safe, the AI's driving style will become a differentiating factor. It seems to me like Google has an advantage in this type of development, although the future can certainly prove me wrong.
chc 14y ago
I think what he means is that car companies are good at making cars, but they're not as good at making the kind of AI you need for a fully autonomous car.

MaysonL 14y ago

Spend some time studying what current auto engines are, and how much software they embody. I'm not sure how much of it has been developed by the auto companies themselves, but there's quite a lot of it, and it's pretty robust: how ofter has your car OS crashed lately?

fr0sty 14y ago
Modern engine control is a collection of lookup tables and feedback loops with some preprogrammed "limp" modes to fall back on if things go pear-shaped. Robust? yes. Adaptive? yes. Complex? not really. Computer vision, road/object/hazard detection and avoidance and the like much much harder problems to solve.